North Ayrshire Conservative group rail against 20mph zone plans
Angry Tories have 'called in' controversial plans agreed by North Ayrshire Council to implement the controversial 20mph speed limit on urban roads.
They suggest it will dilute police and council resources and adversely affect public transport efficiency.
North Ayrshire Council Cabinet earlier this month noted the Scottish Government's National Strategy for 20mph in Urban areas and agreed the implementation of 20mph speed limits on appropriate roads as detailed in the implementation plans.
A request was received in terms of the call-in procedure set out in the council's Scheme of Administration and Standing Orders, that the Audit and Scrutiny Committee examine the decision taken by the Cabinet at their meeting next Thursday, June 19.
The call-in request, which was signed by Conservative councillors Todd Ferguson, Scott Gallacher and Ronnie Stalker is in the following terms: 'The Scottish Government's National 20mph Strategy is aspirational in tone but experimental in scope. While well-intentioned, its widespread implementation lacks sufficient evidence of efficacy, especially on roads already exhibiting average speeds below 25mph.
'This policy, if adopted without amendment, risks diluting police and Council resources, adversely affecting public transport efficiency, and imposing unjustifiable burdens on the public purse—contrary to the financial prudence owed to North Ayrshire's taxpayers.
'The strategy also raises legitimate legal and democratic concerns regarding adequacy of consultation, particularly among working residents, rural communities, and small business owners who will bear the practical consequences of slower road speeds and delayed logistics.
'As a matter of public administration, the council must guard against overreach in regulatory intervention without evidence-based justification and must uphold the principle of proportionality, particularly when imposing restrictions on public freedoms.
'The Conservative Group respectfully calls upon Cabinet to:
Suspend the blanket implementation of the 20mph speed limit across all roads identified in Appendix 1, pending the outcome of a full review of cost-effectiveness, enforceability, and public consultation.
Commission an independent impact assessment, consistent with principles of Best Value as defined in the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, before any further capital expenditure is incurred.
Adopt a targeted and proportionate approach, taking into account the feedback from the public consultation referenced above and elected members, with 20mph zones restricted to locations supported by empirical safety data—such as near schools, care facilities, or recorded accident black spots.'
The Elected Members who have submitted the call-in will be invited to address the Committee to explain the respective call-in request.
The appropriate Cabinet Member will then be invited to clarify the reasons for the decision. The relevant senior officer will also be present to provide information on the report presented to Cabinet and on issues raised by the call-in received.
The committee will have an opportunity to ask questions of both parties and of those officers in attendance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
Chagos Islands deal will see Mauritius ‘receive £35bn over 99 years'
A deal to keep the UK-US military base running in the Chagos Archipelago is projected to see £34.7 billion handed to Mauritius over the next 99 years. Conservative shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel has accused ministers of trying to "cover up" the cost of ceding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, alleging an "accountancy trick" was used to price the deal at £3.4 billion. The higher £34.7 billion figure, released after a freedom of information request to the Government Actuary's Department, is a nominal amount. Adjusted for inflation, the deal is worth an average £101 million annually in 2025/26 terms, reducing its value to around £10 billion in today's money. The UK Government has agreed to cede the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius but retain control of the military base on Diego Garcia. Ministers feared that without a deal, the base's future was in doubt amid challenges in international courts and tribunals. 'We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers,' Dame Priti wrote in The Telegraph, which first reported the figures. 'But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts.' Dame Priti also warned that 'instead of owning up to the costs, Labour has used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only £3.4 billion – still a vast waste of money'. She described the £35 billion figure as 'mind-blowing', and labelled Foreign Secretary David Lammy as ''Calamity' Lammy'. Dame Priti accused him, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Attorney General Lord Hermer and special envoy for the negotiations Jonathan Powell of being 'the worst team of negotiators in history'. The figures, seen by the PA news agency, show that the Government used a Treasury principle to reduce the figure by between 2.5% and 3.5% per year to £3.4 billion. This 'social time preference', used since 2003, is based on the idea that taxpayers would prefer to get their return on the deal sooner rather than later.
New Statesman
32 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Shabana Mahmood's star is rising
Photo by Ben Whitley-Which Labour cabinet minister had the worst inheritance? Rachel Reeves, Wes Streeting and Yvette Cooper could all make plausible cases. But the person with the strongest argument of all might be Shabana Mahmood. The Justice Secretary was bequeathed a prison system close to collapse – having operated at 99 per cent capacity since the start of 2023 – by Rishi Sunak (as an independent review confirmed last week). This left her with one unpalatable move when she entered government: the early release of thousands of prisoners who had served 40 per cent of their sentence. Though Mahmood, the UK's most senior Muslim MP, blamed the Tories' 'guilty men', she could easily have become a politically toxic figure, typecast by Labour's opponents and the media as 'soft on crime'. Instead, by turning a crisis into an opportunity, she has emerged as one of the government's most effective cabinet ministers. Mahmood knew sentencing reform was unavoidable but has advanced liberal measures with a conservative face, appointing the former Tory justice secretary David Gauke to lead a review and choosing Texas as her model (rather than the Netherlands or the Nordics). Plans to expand chemical castration for sex offenders, which dominated the debate on the day Gauke published his report in May, was an act of astute media management. Over the weekend, Mahmood again demonstrated her radical streak by announcing that most foreign criminals will now face immediate deportation upon sentencing and be barred from returning. Only terrorists – for security reasons – and those on indeterminate sentences such as murderers will be exempt (the government has already increased deportations by 14 per cent). The move partly reflects the need for extra prison capacity – foreign criminals account for around 12 per cent of the inmate population – and a sea change in public opinion. 'Where once people wanted to force someone to spend time in our prisons first, now they just want them out,' says a Mahmood aide. Internal polling by Labour – which clearly stated that foreign criminals would not necessarily face imprisonment abroad – found that 80 per cent favour the policy. But for Mahmood it is also a point of principle. As the child of migrant parents, who came to the UK from rural Kashmir, she has an authentic outrage over foreign criminals. 'To be welcomed into this country, as my parents were, is to assume responsibilities as well as rights,' she wrote in the Sunday Telegraph. Mahmood, as I reported in my column last week, is one of the cabinet champions of 'contribution', an idea being discussed at the top of government that makes clearer the link between what voters put in and get out. For some, this could mean a more generous system of 'unemployment insurance' or protection from the tax rises looming in Rachel Reeves' Budget. But Mahmood has shown the tougher side of the contributory principle: those who do not live up to their responsibilities will be penalised. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Obstacles remain: foreign criminals will have the right to appeal against deportation under the European Convention on Human Rights. For this reason, Cooper's review of article 8, which protects the right to a family life and has been blamed for thwarting action, is regarded inside government as pivotal. 'We will discover after that whether domestic law can triumph over international law,' says a Mahmood ally. For now, the Justice Secretary can draw satisfaction from the praise she is attracting across the spectrum. Michael Gove, one of her predecessors, last week named her the politically sharpest cabinet minister. Charlie Falconer, who held the same role under Tony Blair and criticised Mahmood for her opposition to assisted dying, told the Guardian: 'Shabana has been an absolutely brilliant, reforming lord chancellor in enormously difficult circumstances. She is somebody whose sense of confidence about what she's doing is something the whole government should emulate.' Yet while some ponder the role Mahmood could play in a future Labour leadership contest, others ask whether she will keep her seat. Zarah Sultana, the putative co-leader of the new left party, is considering standing against her in Birmingham Ladywood (Mahmood's majority is 3,421). 'It would be a big mistake to go for Ladywood where Shabana's roots are deep and Sultana's are non-existent,' warns a Mahmood source. But whatever her future, we can already say with certainty that no one will remember Shabana Mahmood as a cabinet minister who wasted her time. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu are trapped] Related
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Mauritius ‘to receive £35bn' for Chagos deal over 99 years
A deal to keep the UK-US military base running in the Chagos Archipelago is projected to see £34.7 billion handed to Mauritius over the next 99 years. Conservative shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel accused ministers of trying to 'cover up' the cost of ceding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, accusing them of using an 'accountancy trick' to price the deal at £3.4 billion. The higher figure, released after a freedom of information request to the Government Actuary's Department, is a nominal amount. Adjusted to account for inflation, the deal is thought to be worth an average £101 million a year in 2025/26 terms, lowering the value to around £10 billion in today's money. The UK Government has agreed to cede the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius but retain control of the military base on Diego Garcia. Ministers feared that without a deal, the base's future was in doubt amid challenges in international courts and tribunals. 'We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers,' Dame Priti wrote in The Telegraph, which first reported the figures. 'But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts.' Dame Priti also warned that 'instead of owning up to the costs, Labour has used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only £3.4 billion – still a vast waste of money'. She described the £35 billion figure as 'mind-blowing', and labelled Foreign Secretary David Lammy as ''Calamity' Lammy'. Dame Priti accused him, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Attorney General Lord Hermer and special envoy for the negotiations Jonathan Powell of being 'the worst team of negotiators in history'. The figures, seen by the PA news agency, show that the Government used a Treasury principle to reduce the figure by between 2.5% and 3.5% per year to £3.4 billion. This 'social time preference', used since 2003, is based on the idea that taxpayers would prefer to get their return on the deal sooner rather than later.
